Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Hu v. Munita

Western District of WashingtonRichard A. JonesDecided May 6, 2020No. 2:19-cv-01302

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.

These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.

What the decision decided

Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.

Agency USCIS Read by a model
After Plaintiff filed 22 a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 15), the parties stipulated to remand the case to 23 United State Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) for “prompt adjudication” 24 of Plaintiff’s naturalization application.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Plaintiff’s naturalization application
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
On August 16, 2019, Plaintiff Xiaosi Hu (“Plaintiff”) petitioned this Court to 21 review his naturalization application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Kind of order An order on fees Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees under the 17 Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).
Motion decided Fees under EAJA Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees under the 17 Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees
Disposition Attorney's fees An order on attorney's fees or costs after the case, counted for the side that won the fee motion. Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees under the 17 Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees under the 17 Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff is 15 awarded attorney fees and costs under the EAJA in the amount of $38,927.80.
Months pending Not stated A section 1447(b) suit: these months run from the naturalization application. The statute's 120 days run from the interview, which they do not measure. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:19-cv-01302
Filed
August 16, 2019
Ended
December 17, 2019
Suit's filing to its end
123 days
How it ended
Remanded to the agency
From the record
idb disp 11 (remanded to U.S. agency)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority

District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.